Three Blue States on the Brink

[brindisi]

(Apparently, somebody thinks that everybody would just get along without control)

Yes, sombody does think that. Perhaps you mean get along with only limited government control, which is what we conservatives, and the authors of the Constitution, think.

 

[canukian]

lol's

You are either with us or against us.

(Apparently, somebody thinks that everybody would just get along without control)

yes i see you want controll.

 

[SOAD]

I am sorry that you feel the need for a government to make decisions for you.

And yes, life does boil down to either/or paradigm choices.

Society would not function without control. Obviously, you believe that you could function better without somebody controlling your life. That may be fine for you but your logic is flawed because you believe what is good for you is good for all. You are far too self centered to see a bigger picture. Religion is control. I see you are Catholic. How does your religion control you, and then explain how your willingness to be controlled by your religion does not create hypocrisy when compared with all your anti-government babble. What decisions have you sacrificed for your religion?

 

[SOAD]

yes i see you want controll.

Honestly, I don't think you see at all.

 

[canukian]

Honestly, I don't think you see at all.

backatcha.

 

[ScottBot]

Society would not function without control. Obviously, you believe that you could function better without somebody controlling your life. That may be fine for you but your logic is flawed because you believe what is good for you is good for all. You are far too self centered to see a bigger picture. Religion is control. I see you are Catholic. How does your religion control you, and then explain how your willingness to be controlled by your religion does not create hypocrisy when compared with all your anti-government babble. What decisions have you sacrificed for your religion?

You make a direct comparison between an organization that is established to clarify matters of faith and morality, and an organization that will try to make it illegal for me to eat butter or be prosecuted?

And you have problems with my Nuremburg comparison. However, the corpus of your posts paint a composite picture of you. You are a statist. You are a paradigmnatic control freak. You want groups of people controlling other people. Any you have the audacity to call me pompous? Pomposity is rooted in the notion that some people are simly better than others, which it typically an attribute of an elitist...who also desire to control others...you knnow, for their own good.

 

[callmeMurph]

Three blue states, CA, NY and IL are on the brink of bankruptcy. They will likely go to the Federal government begging for help (i.e. money). The new Republican house will probably tell them to take a hike and pay their own bills. I agree and I live in one of these states. This would be a calamity for the democrat party. What do you think?

I live in NY and I saw let them file bankruptcy. Why should I have to pay them more money because they couldn't use my money correctly in the first place?

 

[callmeMurph]

Society would not function without control. Obviously, you believe that you could function better without somebody controlling your life. That may be fine for you but your logic is flawed because you believe what is good for you is good for all. You are far too self centered to see a bigger picture. Religion is control. I see you are Catholic. How does your religion control you, and then explain how your willingness to be controlled by your religion does not create hypocrisy when compared with all your anti-government babble. What decisions have you sacrificed for your religion?

Your logic is flawed. Control means that people in authority think what is good for them is good for all. Limited government means that people have control over their own lives and can determine for themselves what is good. The government is only there to protect our freedom to do what we want, meaning that keeps other people, including the government from taking our rights, our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Religion is not control if it is lived by faith, if you actually believe the way you live. Control means you have to do something no matter what you believe. Faith means you do it because you actually believe it.

 

[SOAD]

and an organization that will try to make it illegal for me to eat butter or be prosecuted?

comply or be excommunicated and banished to pergetory


One man's control is another man's way of life.

 

[SOAD]

Control means that people in authority think what is good for them is good for all. Limited government means that people have control over their own lives and can determine for themselves what is good.

control vs. limited control.


there is either control or no control. Are you with us or against us?

 

[Fantine]

The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

Federal spending in each state per Per Dollar of Federal Taxes paid by that state (2005):

...

New York: $0.79
California: $0.78
Illinois: $0.75

... these states are not exactly leaching off the rest of the country...


and just for the record:
Texas: $0.94

(some people think that all red states receive more federal spending than they pay out. That's true of most red states, but Texas is an exception!)

This one's for Sarah Palin:
Alaska: $1.84

P.S. california is democratic but it's government system is disfunctional. It's impossible to raise taxes there and the fiscal policy so fas been pro-cyclical for about the past 10 years at least. You can't blame california's mess on Keynesians--it's just the opposite.

It sounds as if these states could secede and be way ahead of the game financially...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Control means that people in authority think what is good for them is good for all. Limited government means that people have control over their own lives and can determine for themselves what is good.

Even if what is good for them is poison to everyone else? Of course not. Some measure of control - held in common - is needed. Civilisation didn't emerge by everyone doing as they pleased and determining what is good for themselves while screwing everyone else over.

 

[ScottBot]

comply or be excommunicated and banished to pergetory


One man's control is another man's way of life.

If you understood Catholic doctrine (which you obviously don't) you would know that when the Church "excommunicates" someone, it is simply recognizing that the person has already separated themselves (Latin: ex "out of" + communica "community")from the Church. It doesn't "kick them out". They kick themselves out. The Church just formally recognizes it. And typically there is a very long process to accomplish this. And they are welcome back whenever they want. There is no punishment involved, other than that the person is denied the grace of the sacraments. But since they are typically obstinate in their error, they really don't care about this anyway.

 

[SOAD]

Even if what is good for them is poison to everyone else? Of course not. Some measure of control - held in common - is needed. Civilisation didn't emerge by everyone doing as they pleased and determining what is good for themselves while screwing everyone else over.

Some just do not see this point. I can only conclude that some value control only when it is controlling others.

 

[ScottBot]

Even if what is good for them is poison to everyone else? Of course not. Some measure of control - held in common - is needed. Civilisation didn't emerge by everyone doing as they pleased and determining what is good for themselves while screwing everyone else over.

The essence of liberty in a civil society is that my right to swing my arm around ends at your nose.

 

[SOAD]

If you understood Catholic doctrine (which you obviously don't) you would know that when the Church "excommunicates" someone, it is simply recognizing that the person has separated themselves from the Church. It doesn't "kick them out". They kick themselves out. The Church just formally recognizes it. And typically there is a very long process to accomplish this. And they are welcome back whenever they want. There is no punishment involved, other than that the person is denied the grace of the sacraments. But since they are typically obstinate in their error, they really don't care about this anyway.

Denied the grace of the sacraments because one was unwilling to adhere to the guidelines set forth. One is denied because one was unwilling to be controlled

 

[callmeMurph]

Even if what is good for them is poison to everyone else? Of course not. Some measure of control - held in common - is needed. Civilisation didn't emerge by everyone doing as they pleased and determining what is good for themselves while screwing everyone else over.

Right, like I said

The government is only there to protect our freedom to do what we want, meaning that keeps other people, including the government from taking our rights, our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[ScottBot]

Some just do not see this point. I can only conclude that some value control only when it is controlling others.

reading your posts, this is your paradigm.

 

[ScottBot]

Denied the grace of the sacraments because one was unwilling to adhere to the guidelines set forth. One is denied because one was unwilling to be controlled

The difference is that noone is REQUIRED to be Catholic. If you don't want to be Catholic, then you don't be a Catholic. Who is trying to control whom? Catholic live their faith by voluntary submission, not because it is being forced upon us.

 

[SOAD]

The essence of liberty in a civil society is that my right to swing my arm around ends at your nose.

When your arm swings too far and hits that nose, who dictates your punishment if you are unwilling to admit your offense and offer compensation if applicable?